RULE CHANGES PROVIDING FOR THE LIMITED USE OF CAMERAS IN THE COURTROOMS OF SEVERAL STATES ARE SUMMARIZED. THE U.S. SUPREME COURT'S LANDMARK DECISION REGARDING TELEVISED TRIALS (ESTES VERSUS TEXAS) IS REVIEWED, WITH EMPHASIS ON THE COURT'S CONCERNS REGARDING THE EFFECTS OF TELEVISED TRIALS ON JURORS, WITNESSES, DEFENDANTS, JUDGES, AND JURIES. EXPERIMENTS WITH TELEVISED TRIALS IN FLORIDA, OKLAHOMA, AND COLORADO ARE CITED. IT IS CONCLUDED THAT CRIMINAL TRIALS CAN BE TELECAST, SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATE RESTRICTIONS, WITHOUT DEPRIVING DEFENDANTS OF THEIR RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS. DURING VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION, PROSPECTIVE JURORS CAN BE SCREENED FOR PREJUDICE RESULTING FROM KNOWLEDGE THAT THE TRIAL IS TO BE TELEVISED. ADVERSE EFFECTS OF TRIAL TELECASTS ON WITNESSES POSE A MORE DIFFICULT PROBLEM BUT COULD BE MINIMIZED BY REQUIRING WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM WITNESSES FOR TELECASTS OF THEIR TESTIMONY. SIMILARLY, THE DEFENDANT'S WRITTEN CONSENT TO BEING INCLUDED IN THE TELECAST COULD BE REQUIRED. SOME DEFENDANTS MAY WISH TO TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THEIR SIDE OF THE STORY TO THE PUBLIC. THE PROBLEM OF COURTROOM THEATRICS BY PUBLICITY-SEEKING ATTORNEYS IS NOT INSURMOUNTABLE. IT MIGHT REASONABLY BE EXPECTED THAT TELEVISION EXPOSURE WOULD MOTIVATE ATTORNEYS TO STRIVE FOR A FAVORABLE VERDICT RATHER THAN TO SHOW OFF AT THE EXPENSE OF THEIR CLIENTS. ALSO, THE PROPER EXERCISE OF THE TRIAL JUDGE'S CONTEMPT POWERS COULD DAMPEN ANY TENDENCY TOWARD THEATRICS. JUDGES SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO PROHIBIT THE TELECAST OF A TRIAL IF THE TELECAST SEEMS TO PRESENT TOO MANY PROBLEMS. (LKM)